Bull Ring Bear challenges Syrisuly : topic gay marriagde and public accomodation laws

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Syriusly


Please explain to us why you argue that the people via the government don't have the power to define marriage, yet they do have the power to tell businesses who they must do business with.

By explain, I don't ask for your opinion. I ask you to validate your opinion. Please bring something more than "commerce clause" to the table.

And go.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly


Please explain to us why you argue that the people via the government don't have the power to define marriage, yet they do have the power to tell businesses who they must do business with.

By explain, I don't ask for your opinion. I ask you to validate your opinion. Please bring something more than "commerce clause" to the table.

And go.

I think from the start you have misrepresented my opinion.

Feel free to provide a quote from me that you want to defend. Or feel free to provide an accurate description of my position.

Then we can talk.

And I will be busy for much of the next two hours- so be prepared for a delayed response.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If I've misrepresented, my apologies, feel free to correct my assumptions. Are you then against public accommodation laws?

 

[Syriusly]

If I've misrepresented, my apologies, feel free to correct my assumptions. Are you then against public accommodation laws?

Something like this would work much better if you argue what your position is- that you think is contrary to your own- and then I will either agree- or argue my position in disagreement.

So let me state what I believe your position is.

You: "I believe that public accommodation laws are both unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Me: I think that public accommodation laws may well be unconstitutional.

I am dubious of the way the argument of the commerce clause has been stretched to accommodate almost any federal claim.

That said- I think that the reason for creating public accommodation laws was morally correct, if legally flawed. There was a real issue not just with legal discrimination embodied in Jim Crow laws, but with widespread- almost universal discrimination- against African Americans in public accommodations in many parts of the United States- discrimination that went beyond capitalism and was virtually institutional. African Americans travelling from the North to the South would have to use maps to map out which gas stations would serve them gas- and running out of gas could be dangerous- let alone which hotels would rent them rooms.

Those of you who believe that PA laws are both unconstitutional and morally wrong have two ways to try to change them:
a) Legislatively repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and similar measures or
b) Go to the courts like gay couples have, to argue that your rights are being violated.

I believe that you have the right to pursue either option.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If I've misrepresented, my apologies, feel free to correct my assumptions. Are you then against public accommodation laws?

Something like this would work much better if you argue what your position is- that you think is contrary to your own- and then I will either agree- or argue my position in disagreement.

So let me state what I believe your position is.

You: "I believe that public accommodation laws are both unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Me: I think that public accommodation laws may well be unconstitutional.

I am dubious of the way the argument of the commerce clause has been stretched to accommodate almost any federal claim.

That said- I think that the reason for creating public accommodation laws was morally correct, if legally flawed. There was a real issue not just with legal discrimination embodied in Jim Crow laws, but with widespread- almost universal discrimination- against African Americans in public accommodations in many parts of the United States- discrimination that went beyond capitalism and was virtually institutional. African Americans travelling from the North to the South would have to use maps to map out which gas stations would serve them gas- and running out of gas could be dangerous- let alone which hotels would rent them rooms.

Those of you who believe that PA laws are both unconstitutional and morally wrong have two ways to try to change them:
a) Legislatively repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and similar measures or
b) Go to the courts like gay couples have, to argue that your rights are being violated.

I believe that you have the right to pursue either option.

Well now you went and were reasonable and took all the wind out of my sails D

/unsubscribe.